The letters page of The Telegraph is full of reactions to Ameer Kotecha's expose on the civil service. One comment that leapt from the page... "occasional interactions with civil servants made me realise that their primary ambition was what they saw as maintaining stability, and what I saw as the preservation of the status quo."
But from what I have heard of civil servants (such as dom Cummings blog and the kotecha guy who has whistle blowed to the spectator), that institutional knowledge is lost as policy civil servants job hop between departments.
I understand and agree with your points but only so far.
I have had a small interaction with one government department, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
My correspondence was concerning heat pumps and their claim being that heat pumps are 280% efficient and far more efficient than gas boilers.
I said that this was nonsense and impossible.
My very simple argument is secondary school level physics and that no device can achieve 100% efficiency. Eventually I had a message from one of the top positions in that department, below the Minister, telling me I know nothing and that the department is correct. The person, whose name I have forgotten, has a physics degree.
The basic error they make, and very many also make, is comparing electrical power against gas power, this cannot be done without applying a factor for the losses in generation and transmission which puts a vastly different result, to bring back the comparison to a level playing field.
Ignorance, at such a level is unacceptable. However if you factor in that belief of superior efficiency and apply it to government policy gives a very real unwarranted bias and I believe a bad policy.
My second point is that different political parties who are in power have different policies, good or bad, have to be applied and that is the duty of the civil service so they need to ignore personal views, experience and apply government policy. In other words they must adapt.
Their efficiency and work output is something I know nothing about but suspect is far lower than industry due to the simple fact that there is no commercial pressure.
The scenarios you describe make clear good sense. But these scenarios don’t paint the full picture. We also have civil servants who act as blockers to change they are ideologically opposed to. Brexit was a good example and the likes of Ollie Robbins obfuscating and generally agreeing with our opponents. He may well have been right that leaving the EU was a dumb move but it was a democratic decision and should have been obeyed.
The basic problem is when the status quo does need updating the ignorant buffoons in our governments haven't the slightest idea how to go about making the changes or are too afraid of the consequences for one reason or another.
For some time now we have and are subject to politicians who are simply not up to the job and would struggle to find employment if they weren't strutting their stuff at our expense in Westminster.
The problem with defending civil servants is some of them, in high or influential positions, block or delay ministerial instructions purely out of ideology. These people need to be sacked and ministers need to have that power. My wife works for the local authority and it is similar there as in you have people that are either not up top the job but are difficult to get rid of (more likely to be promoted in some cases) and left wing ideology is rife. Also waste and inefficiency is everywhere. It needs to change or we are finished.
Have you read Dominic Cumming’s blog: “The Hollow Men”? Our civil service is rife with institutional incompetence. People who can’t even spell things properly, or who leak incorrect press releases without being told. There is an entire group of people called “primary movers”–so named because they are so incompetent, they are transferred from one department to the next one, each time they make a mistake. Nobody ever gets fired, or punished.
I think you ought to read it, so you will begin to understand the scale of the problem.
I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to compare software development to a large-scale managerial bureaucracy like Whitehall. There is no incentive structure to perform well and meet deadlines because they are protected from the consequences.
Especially when it is the managerial, left-wing culture of the legal department in the Cabinet Office that are basically responsible for all the terrible things happening in this country–they hold vast, and unaccountable power. Each time we let in some foreign rapist criminal in this country, and he is given a slap on the wrist, it is thanks to them that they are let off.
I remember being told in the department I worked for to ‘go the extra mile’ to help claimants by the director.
The opportunity occurred almost immediately.
A woman had spent months trying to get her claim sorted with no success.
Although I wasn’t supposed to delve into former claims I decided to help her out.
It took me 30 or so minutes to identify the problem(s) but I needed clearance from management to make the adjustments.
I got no clearance, instead I was criticised for spending too much time on an individual case,
When I pointed out going the ‘extra mile’ was being pushed by our dear leader I was told that it was all very well for him to say that but it would reduce our productivity.
The poor lady lost out - the civil service won out.
But from what I have heard of civil servants (such as dom Cummings blog and the kotecha guy who has whistle blowed to the spectator), that institutional knowledge is lost as policy civil servants job hop between departments.
Pete,
I understand and agree with your points but only so far.
I have had a small interaction with one government department, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
My correspondence was concerning heat pumps and their claim being that heat pumps are 280% efficient and far more efficient than gas boilers.
I said that this was nonsense and impossible.
My very simple argument is secondary school level physics and that no device can achieve 100% efficiency. Eventually I had a message from one of the top positions in that department, below the Minister, telling me I know nothing and that the department is correct. The person, whose name I have forgotten, has a physics degree.
The basic error they make, and very many also make, is comparing electrical power against gas power, this cannot be done without applying a factor for the losses in generation and transmission which puts a vastly different result, to bring back the comparison to a level playing field.
Ignorance, at such a level is unacceptable. However if you factor in that belief of superior efficiency and apply it to government policy gives a very real unwarranted bias and I believe a bad policy.
My second point is that different political parties who are in power have different policies, good or bad, have to be applied and that is the duty of the civil service so they need to ignore personal views, experience and apply government policy. In other words they must adapt.
Their efficiency and work output is something I know nothing about but suspect is far lower than industry due to the simple fact that there is no commercial pressure.
Great information there.
The scenarios you describe make clear good sense. But these scenarios don’t paint the full picture. We also have civil servants who act as blockers to change they are ideologically opposed to. Brexit was a good example and the likes of Ollie Robbins obfuscating and generally agreeing with our opponents. He may well have been right that leaving the EU was a dumb move but it was a democratic decision and should have been obeyed.
The basic problem is when the status quo does need updating the ignorant buffoons in our governments haven't the slightest idea how to go about making the changes or are too afraid of the consequences for one reason or another.
For some time now we have and are subject to politicians who are simply not up to the job and would struggle to find employment if they weren't strutting their stuff at our expense in Westminster.
The problem with defending civil servants is some of them, in high or influential positions, block or delay ministerial instructions purely out of ideology. These people need to be sacked and ministers need to have that power. My wife works for the local authority and it is similar there as in you have people that are either not up top the job but are difficult to get rid of (more likely to be promoted in some cases) and left wing ideology is rife. Also waste and inefficiency is everywhere. It needs to change or we are finished.
You have a very good point here.
Have you read Dominic Cumming’s blog: “The Hollow Men”? Our civil service is rife with institutional incompetence. People who can’t even spell things properly, or who leak incorrect press releases without being told. There is an entire group of people called “primary movers”–so named because they are so incompetent, they are transferred from one department to the next one, each time they make a mistake. Nobody ever gets fired, or punished.
I think you ought to read it, so you will begin to understand the scale of the problem.
I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to compare software development to a large-scale managerial bureaucracy like Whitehall. There is no incentive structure to perform well and meet deadlines because they are protected from the consequences.
Especially when it is the managerial, left-wing culture of the legal department in the Cabinet Office that are basically responsible for all the terrible things happening in this country–they hold vast, and unaccountable power. Each time we let in some foreign rapist criminal in this country, and he is given a slap on the wrist, it is thanks to them that they are let off.
I remember being told in the department I worked for to ‘go the extra mile’ to help claimants by the director.
The opportunity occurred almost immediately.
A woman had spent months trying to get her claim sorted with no success.
Although I wasn’t supposed to delve into former claims I decided to help her out.
It took me 30 or so minutes to identify the problem(s) but I needed clearance from management to make the adjustments.
I got no clearance, instead I was criticised for spending too much time on an individual case,
When I pointed out going the ‘extra mile’ was being pushed by our dear leader I was told that it was all very well for him to say that but it would reduce our productivity.
The poor lady lost out - the civil service won out.